sign in sign up
<<
Home , Communication studies

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 02 Oct 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Handbook of

Peter Simonson, Janice Peck, Robert T. Craig, John P. Jackson, Jr.

Communication

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 Jefferson D. Pooley, David W. Park Published online on: 10 Dec 2012

How to cite :- Jefferson D. Pooley, David W. Park. 10 Dec 2012, Communication Research from: The Handbook of Communication History Routledge Accessed on: 02 Oct 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203149119.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 76 work, this account—akindofsocialscience ing throughprofessionalization andmethodologicalprecision.Despitesomerecentrevisionist When merged, the LazarsfeldandSchrammhistoriesdescribeayoung(American) fi ings ofthe“fourfounders”account, andthestoryfounditsway into countlesssurvey textbooks. the would-be discipline’s “fourfounders.” Schrammwould goontopublishnumerousretell- of prominentsocialscientists—, CarlHovland, HaroldLasswell,andLazarsfeld—as by the American fi pages of effects.” This storywas narratedmostinfl after World War II,toamorenuanced, methodologicallysophisticatedunderstandingof“limited dermic needle”or“magicbullet” theoryofdirectmediainfl tory begins withthestudyofpropagandaininterwar UnitedStates,saidtoclinga“hypo- bundle ofmnemonic hand-me-downs thatcomprisethe salutes totheoriespast,inthepanoramicfi the syllabiofgraduatepro-seminarsandundergraduate survey courses,injournalarticles’brief voke itspastinathousandsmallways, mostlyoutsidethework thatthischaptersurveys: in inabundance. the patternedneglect as onefault amongothersthat,taken together, undercutstheappearanceof Bureau of Applied SocialResearchwithattention,but have ignoredtheglobalSouth. We callout toriography isfragmentaryandlopsided.For example, historianshave lavished ’s surprisingly vast literature.For allthebibliographicabundance, weconcludethatthefi register thefi of communicationresearch.Oneirony isthatthehistoriographicalliterature,asaresult,fails to points oftension—ormutualindifference—is echoedbythepublishedliteratureonhistory putes, mixed disciplinaryroots,subfi difference: nationaltraditions,methodologicalloyalties, long-runningskills-or-scholarship dis- munication researchresemblesitsobjectofstudy. Considerafew ofthefi torical accountsofthefi Communication researchis,andhasbeen,unwieldybalkanized. The sameistrueofhis- memory ofitself(Pooley 2008). Once somenineteenth-centurycenturypreliminariesare acknowledged, that received his- The fi This chapter, ananalysisofpublished,English-languageworks onthefi Personal Infl uence eld’s historydeserves moreandbetter. Infact, communicationscholarsroutinelyin- eld’s cacophonicdisorder—except byexample. Communication Research eld’s energetic booster, (e.g.,1963),whoanointedaquartet Jefferson D. Pooley andDavid W. Park eld’s development. Inthissenseatleast,thehistoriographyofcom- (1955). The othermainstrandofthereceived historywas recounted eld chauvinisms,andNorth-Southdisparities.Eachofthese uentiallybyElihuKatzandLazarsfeldintheopening rst chaptersoftextbooks. Very oftenweappealto the bildungsroman 3 received —remains fi uence whichgave way, duringand history ofthefi rmly lodgedinthefi eld’s notableaxes of eld’s history, mapsa eld. eldmatur- eld’s his- eld’s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 evant attributes; someentriesweretaggedtenormoretimes,andothers justonce. “Cold War”). The numberoftagsassignedtoany singlepublicationvaried, accordingtoitsrel- ”or“Columbia”);and(6)thehistoricalgeopoliticalcontext (e.g.,“1920s”or research” or“McLuhan”);(5)institutionallocation(e.g.,“BirminghamCentreforContemporary fi ada” or“Venezuela”); (3)disciplinaryframeofreference,ororientationtoafi historiographical approach(e.g.,“biographical”or“institutional”);(2) (e.g.,“Can- each entryaccordingtoitsrelevant attributes. We deployed thetagstorecord,whenrelevant, (1) stack ofscholarship,wegatheredthecitationsintoabibliography, thenassigneddigitaltagsto clustered aroundparticulartopics,methods,andgeographies.Inordertomake senseofthattall have insteaddefl academic life. The otherpayoff isaservicetothefi eld,toinvite aself-scrutiny thatourpublished For onething,ourparticularly richcasecouldhelpilluminatesomeofthebroaderdynamics . Itisahardsetofstoriestotell,given itssheercomplexity, but worth theexertion. time governments, concernedpublics,nervous academics,ambitiousuniversities, andneedy a department-by-department achievement, won withtheaid—andsometimehindrance—ofwar- fi that therewas ever anintactwindow. To cataloguetheshardsistodirectourattention strive tomake thechaosplain.Justbecauseglassshardsarescatteredaboutdoesnotmean fi myths. Storytelling,inotherwords, hasbeendraftedtoholdthewholething—themadcap myths andthelike. Instead,work centeredonthefi eld’s historyhastendedtofortifythose in communicationresearch,wedonothave arobust checkontherecycling oftheseorigin serendipitous affi a morerigidclassifi cationmightrequireachoice. Anotherbenefi toftagsisthatthey spotlight claim, forinstance,boththe “internationalcommunication”and“mediaeffects” tags—when scholar inthetitle,orelsegrant himsignifi cantbillinginthearticleabstract. earn thetag“NéstorGarcía-Canclini,” forexample, anarticleneededtoreferencethe Argentinian name, orcountrywould notmerita tag;thetreatmentneededtobemoresubstantialthanthat. To abstracts, tables-of-contents,and—whennecessary—full text. A merementionof,say, atopic, work onmedia-relatedtopics. to theChicagosociologistsascommunicationscholars,or histories thatplainlyaddressChicago body ofhistoryonthe“ChicagoSchool”. We includedonlythoseworks thatrefer ated orface-to-face communication(aneticdesignation). There is,forexample, anenormous research (anemicindicator)and/or(2)addressthat wejudgedtobecenteredonmedi- as history, andthenmeetoneoftwo criteria:(1)toself-describe itssubjectas“communication” clature isupforgrabs. “ communication”researcher—except, ironically, claimsforcatholicity. Even thenomen- of “fi main issueatstake inany numberofhistoricalaccounts.Even worse, amapdrawn byascholar no recognizedbordersaroundthefi eld (e.g.,“sociology”or“”); (4)substantive topic,subfi eld,or fi gure(e.g.,“audience eld’s complex anduneven development aroundtheworld. “Communicationresearch”hasbeen eld—together. This chapterdocumentswhatwehave sofar: over 1,600publishedworks inEnglishalone, The problemwiththiskindofhistoryisitsgoal:tobringorderchaos.Insteadweshould Trust ininheritedshorthandsiscommonotherdisciplinestoo. What isunusualthat, The advantage oftaggingis its fl We faced aseriesofjudgmentcallsinthetaggingprocesstoo. To applytags,weconsulted Our solutionwas toerectavery bigtent.For inclusion,apublishedwork hadtopresentitself We faced anearlydilemma: whattocountaswork onthefi eld’s history. Thereare,afterall, lmandmediastudies”mayhave nothingincommonwiththeterritorysurveyed by, say, a nities: ofthefi fty-three entriestagged“journalismeducation,” for example, ected. eld itself. The would-be discipline’s scope,moreover, isthe exibility. Tags arenon-exclusive, sothatanarticlemight OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH eld-within-the- 1 77 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 of entriessharedthetwo tags,andthatfi cialized historicaloverview ofvarious subdisciplines”(BryantandPribanic-Smith 2010,21). and US-centric,accountofthe fi eld’s generalintellectualdevelopment, followed bya “more spe- in thelatest fi remained. Inotherwords, 927works—more thanhalfthebibliography—usedanidea-driven, those works whichalsoreceived “contextual” and/or“institutional”tags,56percent ofallentries tual andinstitutional 1,181) ofbibliographicentriesweretagged“fi combines adiscipline-centriclenswithfocusonintellectual developments. Fully 71percent(or pairings suggestfourbroadhistoriographicalapproaches. The mostcommonapproach byfar words, wereappliednonexclusively, sinceinpracticemany studiesblendtheseapproaches. centric,” “contextual,” orboth—andas“intellectual,” “institutional” orboth. The tags, inother over university resources.For ouranalysis, every entryin thebibliographywas taggedas“fi while institutionalnarratives centeronfactors like theorganization ofresearchandcompetition undeniable importance. to: textbook capsulesand literature-review asideswereleftoutforpracticalreasons,despitetheir bound judgmentcallsopentochallenge. There is,fi the choicetocreateparticulartags,andassignthemworks, involves context- in masscommunication,itislikely thattheomissionsarepatternedbyfi but cannotbeconsideredcomplete.Moreover, given ourbackgroundsasU.S.academicstrained tions. Ouraimstobeexhaustive were,ofcourse, doomedfromthestart;bibliographyislarge, notable isitsrestrictiontoworks publishedinEnglish. We alsocertainlymissedmany publica- a mixofclosereadingandtaxonomicbreadth. picture sweepwhich,inturn,informedourtreatmentofspecifi carticlesandbooks. Theresultis which asmallsubsetofrelevant works meritsbriefdiscussion. The bibliographysuppliedabig- phy, thecentralityofjournalismeducationto American fi thirty-nine arealsotagged“UnitedStates”—whichspeakstotheimbalanceofhistoriogra- 78 JEFFERSOND.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK or theinfl uenceofneighboringdisciplines. cupied withthesurroundingenvironment, andattendtomatterslike funding,publiccontroversy, much concernforwhatwentonbeyond itsborders. centric point toapairofcontrastshelpmake patternedsenseofthesprawling bibliography. and certainapproachestendtocorrelatewithkindsofconclusions.Inouranalysiswe discredit. Stillothersarewrittentomemorializeaformercolleague. ing tofootnotesandarchival remnants.Somearetriumphalistandrousing;othersdebunk and chronicle theevolution ofaresearchconcept.Otherslingerinparticular placeandtime,attend- sometimes clashing—aspirations.Somehistoriesareunapologeticallypotted,designedtobriefl The fi eld’s historianshave approachedtheir work indiverse ways, andwithdifferent—and eld-bounded approachtotheirhistories. A goodexample is thehistoricalsurvey chapterincluded Far lesscommonisthecontrastingapproach:contextual, institutional history. Just10percent Considered asatwo-by-two table,thefi Despite itsinclusive design,ourtaggedbibliographyhasanumberofweaknesses. The most We usedthetaggedbibliographyasasupplement tothetraditionalsurvey approach,in These aren’t meremattersofstyle.Historiographicalchoiceshave narrative consequences, histories, inourdefi Handbook ofCommunication histories. Intellectualaccountstracetheevolution ofideasandinfl HISTORIOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES nition, focusondevelopments withinagiven discipline,without gure droppedto5percent—or75publications—when 2 eld-centric” and“intellectual.” Even afterexcluding eld-centric/contextual and intellectual/institutional

The second,relatedcontrastisbetweenintellec- , whichprovides awide-ranging,thoughbrief Contextual histories,bycontrast,arepreoc- nally, aclassofomissionsalreadyalluded eld, orboth. eld andgeography. Even uence, Field- eld- y Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 “fi efeller Foundation’s supportforvarious fi among thisrelatively smallbundle, but consider William Buxton’s (1999)treatmentoftheRock- by-, notconceptsandclassicworks. to “aparticularconstellationofprojectsandinitiatives” (189). The focushereisonmoney and the 1930s.Hisapproachisto“begin withparticularphilanthropicdivisions” andfollow through and contacts”alreadyunderway in1950sEuropeancommunicationresearch(515). ing houses,anddepartmentsacrossEurope. There was, heshows, a“regular systemofexchanges proof isalmostexclusively brick-and-mortar:new journals rect thereceived view thatresearchintheimmediatepostwar was largely an American affair. His charts therelatively lively communicationresearchsceneinearly postwar Europe,inparttocor- histories ofjournalismschoolsorprofessionalassociations.Erik Vroons (2005),forexample, percent—or 179works—when “contextual” and“intellectual”wereexcluded. Many oftheseare entries received the“fi or curricula,elsetellthestoryofaparticularinstituteconference. Twenty-fi stitutional Berelson’s (1959)eulogyfor the(American)fi tend tocritiquethediscipline(e.g.,Simpson1994).Butthere arenotableexceptions. Bernard are atleastimplicitlyfi tell youmuchaboutthevalence ofitsconclusions.Still,mostfi —infl Rodriguez concludes,adoptedbypostwar Mexican scholars.Herean“external” factor—U.S. ket ofideasinafreemarket ”(1995,vi).Many ofthesevalues andassumptionswere, claims toobjectivity, was suffused with American culturalvalues, inthe“context ofafreemar- research portraitofMexican mediainthepostwar years. American researchonMexico, despite and “institutional”wereexcluded. JuanRodriguez(1995),forexample, examines U.S.scholars’ and “intellectual”tags,thoughjustover 8percent(or132studies)remainedafter“fi kind ofcontextual relief. Fouteen percentofthebibliographyentriescarried“contextual” research. Inthisapproachthefocusisonideasandresearch,but these arealways castinsome (like publicfearsaboutchildren’s mediaexposure) onintellectualcurrentswithincommunication fl studies hasyettobewritten.” Mosthistories,they note,have beennational,withthe“bulk of Studies, Historyto1968,” observe thatthe“internationalhistoryofcommunication andmedia Peter SimonsonandJohnDurham Peters(2008),intheirexcellent “CommunicationandMedia tory in Whiggish terms,asasuccessfulstoryofacademicenclosure. (Sproule 2008;Chaffee andRogers1997amongthem)narratethe(U.S.)fi expansion asasalutarydevelopment forthefi worldwide spreadofUS-stylepublic opinionresearchduringtheearlyCold War, but framesthe use theapproachtocritiquefi story—but concludesthatthefi uence ofideasfromotheracademicdisciplines,ortracestheimpactenvironmental factors eld-centric”- and“intellectual”-taggeditemswereexcluded. There ishardlyatypicalcase A numberofthefi The lastofthefourbroadapproaches— Knowing thataparticularhistoricalstudyusedoneoranotherapproachdoesnot,initself, By contrast,Robert Worcester (1987) suppliesacontextual/institutional accountofthe emphasis. These accountstypically tracethedevelopment ofdepartments,schools uenced intellectualdevelopments intheUnitedStatesandMexico. eld-centric” and“institutional”tags,thoughtheproportiondroppedto11 eld-affi eld’s historianscombinea rming (e.g.,Harper1979),whilecontextual/institutional accounts eld is“witheringaway” (1).Others(e.g.,Carey 1996;Ray2000) eld infavor ofsomeneglected orforgotten tradition. GEOGRAPHY lm- andfi eld. A handfuloffi contextual, intellectual eld, forinstance,tellsafi fi eld-centric OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , pressinstitutes,workshops, publish- lm-study projectsandinstitutesin eld-centric/institutional histories eld-centric/intellectualhistories , within-fi history—documents thein- eld-centric/intellectual eld’s institutionalhis- eld opticwithan ve percentof eld-centric” in- 79 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 States andUnitedKingdomweretagged bined. The inequalitywas far morepronouncedinthecaseofdeveloping countries:theUnited States andUnitedKingdomweretaggedmorethantwiceasoftentherestofworld com- world, but werenotpreparedforthedramaticimbalanceswefound. Taken together, theUnited international historyofthefi used whenhistoriansframedtheirstudiesintheseterms. The relatively few attemptstodraw an geographic context was unmistakable.Regional tags(like “Europe”or“Latin America”) were (1993) historyofcriticalcommunicationstudiesin1980sSouthKorea was tagged,sinceits 1955 Decatur, Illinoisstudy—but didnotreceive ageographictag.Bycontrast, Yung-Ho Im’s American andGermanexamples—including aparagraphonElihuKatzandPaul Lazarsfeld’s (2001) briefhistoryofpopularandscholarlyfearsmediapotency touchesonanumberof ic tag,theplace-relevance hadtobesustained andsubstantial.For example, Thomas J.Roach’s episode, institute,tradition,orscholarunderstudywas specifi historiography supportstheirclaims—resoundingly. attention devoted toNorth America andwesternEurope”(764).Ouranalysisofthepublished 80 Gomez-Palacio Campos(1989). can bestitchedtogetherfrom work byJosédeMelo(1993),Claudio Mellado(2011),andCarlos lana 2006). The outlineofaninstitutionalhistoryLatin American communicationresearch García-Canclini, andLudovico Silva (Berry2006;Szurmukand Waisbord 2011;Calles-Santil- review thecontributions ofcriticalLatin American scholars like JesúsMartín-Barbero,Néstor ars’ publishedquarrelwiththereigningmodernizationparadigm. A numberofotherstudies reconstructs aLatin American “participatorycommunicationparadigm”fi communication subfi American scholars’prominentrolesinthechallengeto prevailing, US-centricinternational only 2percentofthebibliography’s entries. About afi 17 citationsintotal. ping Finland’s sixcitations.SouthernandEasternEuropewererelatively neglected, meritingjust on fi Germany withjust24taggedpublications,mostfrequentlyoverlapping (fi 104 tags(6percent),mostoftenpaired(23times)withFrankfurtSchoolthemes.Francetrailed (53 percent,or79entries)dealtwiththecountry’s culturalstudies tradition.Germany registered the world. Britainwas mostfrequentlytagged—at150studies(9percent)—and morethanhalf whole. Europe’s 358citationspaledrelative totheUnitedStates,but stillfar outpacedtherestof analysts. McLuhan; three-quartersofCanada-taggedpublicationsfocusedononeorboththemedium citation countwas dominatedbywork onjusttwo scholars,Harold Adam InnisandMarshall studies. The greatbulk ofthese—756,infact—treated U.S.topics.Canada’s relatively high97 ing, forourpurposes,CanadaandtheUnitedStates)weretaggedinover half(51percent)the 65 entries—covered historicaltopicsinthedeveloping world. entries, ormorethan60percentofthetotal. And theglobalSouth? Lessthan4percent—amere United Kingdom,orbothcountries.IfCanadaand Australia areincluded,thetotalrisesto1,107 way, morethanhalf(55percent,or906entries)ofallstudiesfocusedontheUnitedStates, lm . There was alarge drop-off after Austria (21entries),withnosinglecountrytop- We expected theEnglish-languagehistoriographicalliteraturetofavor the Anglophone Our procedurewas totagbibliographicentriesbygeography, ifthelocationofresearch The historyof Asian communicationresearchbarelyregisters, garneringjustover 1percent Latin America—including Mexico, theCaribbean,andCentral America—was taggedin Just over afi The breakdown bycontinent followed thesamepattern.North America countries(compris- JEFFERSON D.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK fth(21percent)oftotalentriesweretaggedforEuropeanstatesorEuropeasa eld inthe1960sand1970s. Alejandro Barranquero(2011),forexample, eld weretagged“international.” 14 times asoftentheentireglobalSouth.Putanother fth ofthearticles(sixentries)treatedLatin ed orobvious. To meritageograph- rst articulated in schol- ve times)withentries Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 made upover 95 percent ofthe229taggednames.Onlyninefi tagged withU.S.affi in thoseworks centeredononeormoreindividuals. Over 75percent—or177scholars—were The geographicdisparitieswe foundintheliteratureasawholewere,notsurprisingly, refl explicitly setsouttoexpand thatconversation toLatin America, India,andChina. (1996, xi).JohnSinclair’s engagementwiththenotionof“culturalimperialism”inthisvolume the fi to conclude,fornow atleast,thatJohnDowning’s claimaboutmediatheorizingalsoappliesto “limited effects” fi attract stillmoreinterest—notleastbecausecertainnarrative sign-posts,like Paul Lazarsfeld’s that thereisalsoaMatthew effect atwork, bywhichestablishedclustersofhistoricalresearch on theother, cannotexplain theimmensewidthofthishistoriographicalchasm. We suspect disciplines in Western EuropeandNorth America, ontheonehand,andrestofworld, indigenous push-back.Still,disparitiesinageandinstitutionalscalebetweenthecommunication of theglobalSouthisdevoted towhatmightbetermed“intellectual colonization,” alongside Europe andtheUnitedStates.Indeed,asubstantialproportionofhistoriographycomingout communication research,initsvarious incarnations,was earlierandmorewidelyestablishedin Southern andEasternEurope,theFrancophoneuniverse, andmuchof Asia. Itisalsotruethat of scholarshipinregions thattendnottopublishinthescholarlyworld’s aspiringlinguafranca: doubt, islanguage:bylimitingouranalysistoEnglish,wehave cutourselves off fromthebulk How canweexplain this grossimbalanceinhistoriographicaltreatment?Oneexplanation, no endless frustration”(10). for communicationresearchersin Africa,” heconcludes,“thestoryisoneofdespondency and city ofnatively trainedresearchers,poorfundingprospects,andweakinstitutionalsupport.“So, and critiques Western infl work ofscholar-activists like FrantzFanon. FrankUgboajah(1987),inanotherstudy, reviews Tomaselli (1995),inonepaper, tracestheuptake ofMarxistculturaltheoryintheanti-colonial six bibliographicentries—noteven one-halfof1percenttheentriesinourbibliography. Keyan nalism ethicswithinJapaneselegal studies. mere threestudies,includingSeijiro Tsukamoto’s (2006)explanation fortheplacementofjour- account ofinstitutionalfl world” (Wang 2011,1461).Indiahasjusttwo entries,including Anup Dhar’s (2011)fascinating “academic dependency andthelackoftheorizinginresearchworks fromoutsidethe Western Schiller (withrefl Kong (and Austria andCanada)(Reisenleitner2002),amemorialessayonU.S.scholarHerbert of Internetresearch(Kluver and Yang 2005),anautobiographicrefl and Aw 2004). The world’s mostpopulousnationmeritsjustsixentries,includinga meta-review This pointisechoedinaliteraturereview on Asian politicalcommunicationresearch(Willnat originated communicationknowledge”—in partowing to Asian scholars’U.S.graduatetraining. Adhikarya (1983),documentstheproblematicdependenceofSoutheast Asian scholarson“US- Miyahara, andKiminthisvolume One,abook-length,UNESCO-sponsoredreportbyRonny of studies.Ofthe23citations,justeightaddresspan-Asianthemes—afact notedaswellbyChen, In the African case,wefi It isagrimrefl eld’s historiography:“anintellectualmonologue withinthemainstream West withitself” ections ontheChineseacademy)(Zhao2001),andanimportantdiscussionof ndings, aregood toteachwith.Regardless ofthereasons,itseemsreasonable ection of Africa’s globalmarginality thattheentirecontinentwarranted just liations. North American and Western Europeanscholars,taken together, ux inthecountry’s communicationresearchfi uence on African communicationscholars.Ugboajahpointstothepau- ndthesamepatternasin Asia andLatin America—only moreso. FIGURES OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH gures outsidethe West received ection onteachinginHong elds. Japanislimitedtoa ected 81 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 explored hisroleinestablishingan“American” culturalstudies(amongthemGrossberg 2009). reviewed Carey’s contributions tojournalismstudies (e.g.,Nerone2009),andanumberofothers a third(23)werememorialspublished afterhis2006death(e.g.,Nord2006). A clusterofworks 1978). between LazarsfeldandFrankfurtSchoolscholars Adorno andHorkheimer(includingMorrison of themcollectedinSimonson2007). A numberofstudiesrevisited thecomplex relationship study, co-authoredbyElihuKatzandLazarsfeld,was the main focusinfi of Applied SocialResearch(e.g.,Barton2001). The Bureau’s classic (46 percentor44entries)oftheLazarsfeld-linked studiesexamined hisColumbia-basedBureau ninety-fi attracted historiographicalattention. roots inadulteducation(Steele1997),andtheCentre’s establishment(Lee2003,ch.3)have all the subjectoftwelve bibliographicentries.Hoggart’s Hoggart, afounderoftheBirminghamCentreforContemporary Cultural Studies(BCCCS),is fi Redal 2008)debatesonculture.Otherworks placethestrongeraccenton Williams asakey to placetheliteraryscholarincontext ofthelate1950sand1960sBritishNew Left(e.g., almost always inconnectiontoculturalstudies.Publishedwork on Williams (18citations)tends number oftreatmentshis“audiencecommodity”thesis(e.g.,Caraway 2011). 2005). RadicalpoliticaleconomistDallasSmythewas taggedin10publications,amongthema prominent inefforts toestablishaputative “mediaecology”tradition(e.g.,Strateand Wachtel respectively. Bothscholarshave attractedmultiplebook-lengthstudies,andthepairareinvariably Innis (45citations)andMcLuhan(43)appearedhighonthelist,inthirdfourthpositions histories have onlyrecentlyattractedEnglish-languageattention(e.g., Winthrop-Young 2011). Germany-linked scholarinthetop25was FriedrichKittler(14),whosetheory-infl Adorno (13citations),Kurt Lewin (12),MaxHorkheimer(9),andKracauer(16). The other States. Four oftheseeighteen werealsoidentifi in any essentialway, but insteadtomeasurerelative geographicattentioninthepublishedhistory. after hisemigration. The ideahereisnotto“claim” scholarsforoneormorenationaltraditions identifi was producedinmorethanonecountry. Nazi-eraemigréSiegfried Kracauer, forexample, was or hercareer. Multiplenationalaffi is made. communication researchandthephilosophy ofscience,sinceonlypassingreferencetoRiesman was taggedforRiesman.Butthetagwas leftoff of Abraham Nosnik’s (1986)dissertationon main focusofEugeneLunn’s (1990)discussionofthe1950smassculturedebate,soentry prominently intheabstract.For example, David Riesmanandhis the scholarinquestion.Inmostcases,individual was namedinthetitle,orelsecalledout Canclini, andFaut Firat—hailedfromthedeveloping world. treatment substantialenoughtomeritatag,andoftheseonlyfi 82 rst-generation fi rst-generation Wilbur Schrammwas asubstantialfocus intwenty-eightstudies,enoughtoplacehimthe After Lazarsfeld,James W. Carey was themostoftentagged.Of hissixty-two citations,over The mostfrequentlytaggedfi Two Britishscholars,Raymond Williams andRichardHoggart,werefrequentlytagged, Canada was identifi Of thetoptwenty-fi In mostcases,ascholarwas identifi For anentrytoreceive anamedtag,thestudy neededtomaintainapreponderantfocuson ed withbothGermany andtheUnitedStates,sincehewrotemajorfi JEFFERSON D.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK ve entrieswereenoughtoaccountfor10percent oftheindividual-tag total. A large share gure inwhatbecameknown as“Britishculturalstudies”(e.g.,Green1974). ed withthreeofthetoptwenty-fi ve mostfrequentlytaggedfi gure byfar was Austrian émigréPaul Lazarsfeld.Indeed,his liations wereassigned, however, ifascholar’s principalwork ed withasinglenation-state,basedonthesettingofhis ed withGermany, allinterwar émigrés: Theodor gures, eighteenwerebasedintheUnited Uses ofLiteracy ve most-taggedfi ve—Fanon, Silva, Martín- Barbero, Lonely Crowd Personal Infl uence (1957) (Corner1998),his fteen publications(many gures. Unsurprisingly, lm theorybeforeand (1950) arethe ected ected (1955) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 and politicalscienceespecially—but also Englishandlatenineteenth-centurypoliticaleconomy. ancestors ismuchlarger, andincludesnotjustthecoresocialsciences—sociology, , States, andjournalisminthe UnitedStatesandelsewhere. Inintellectualtermsthefamily of plicates matters.Many culturalstudiesscholarsresist thelabeltoo(cfGrossberg 1996). studies scholarswould never refertothemselves as“communicationresearchers” certainlycom- counted withinthewiderfi predictably messy. Shouldinterdisciplinaryfi Communication studies’relationshipwithitsdisciplinary forerunnersandfellow-travelers is Lazarsfeld andtheChicagoSchool. the enthusiasmofstrategically placedindividuals” (1996,6).Shecitestwo tellingexamples: her historyofsociologicalresearchmethods,“hasbeen to asurprisingextent dependenton in partthroughhistoricaltribute. “Whatgetswrittenabout,” observed JenniferPlatt(1996)in W. Carey, LazarsfeldhisElihuKatz:fi the presence(or, moreto thepoint,absence)ofmnemonicchampions.RobertPark hadhisJames rich-get-richer dynamicweidentifi or historicalsignifi the West andtherestofworld intheserankscouldnotsurvive aneutralmeasureofscholarly however, thatpastdiscriminationisn’t explanation enough.Likewise, thegiganticgapbetween to refl place throughoutmostofthelastcentury. We would expect, inotherwords, thehistoriography entries, andthenjustbarely. and Britishfi German publicopinionresearcherElisabethNoelle-Neumann(6citations;e.g.,Löblich2007) were amongthe229fi once (Liebes2003).Indeed,thecaseoffemalescholarslike Herzogisinstructive. Just18women colleague andformerwifeHertaHerzog—who,alongwith124otherfi argue, forexample, thatLazarsfeld’s contributions tothefi scholarly engagement—arenotalignedwithhistoricalorintellectualsignifi individual scholarsismarkedly uneven. The citationcounts—and,forthatmatter, thedepthsof Pooley 2007). a “ChicagoSchool”approachtocommunicationanddemocracy (asinCarey 1996,thoughsee citations) isfrequentlygroupedwithDewey andCharlesHortonCooley asthecoremembersof was reallymoreofanexchange betweenlongtimeallies.ChicagosociologistRobertPark (15 Superb revisionist work bySueCurryJansen(2009)hasestablishedthatthe1920sdebate almost always inconnectionwiththeso-calledLippmann-Dewey debate(e.g.,Carey 1982). see Cartier1988). (including Glander1996). A comparatively smallnumber explore hisintellectuallegacy (though Illinois, and/orStanford(e.g.,Hudson1977)andahandfulpresenthimasthefi fi fthslotafterMcLuhan.Mostofthese(19studies)emphasizedhisinstitutionbuilding atIowa, Then therearethemoredirect institutionalancestors:speechandrhetoricintheUnited What’s goingonhere? A measureofunconsciousdiscrimination,wethink,alongwiththe No doubtthegenderdisparityrefl Like somuchelseinthepublishedhistoriography, thedistribution ofattentionpaidto John Dewey (with25citations)and Walter Lippmann(16)weretaggedtogether12times, ect thatdiscrimination,andyieldagenderimbalance. The inequityissopronounced, lm theoristLauraMulvey (3;e.g.,Loshitzky 2003)—even roseabove two tagged cance. gures tagged,or10percentofthetotal.Onlyapairfemaleresearchers— eld? Orarethey somethinglike cognates? The fact thatmostfi ed earlier. Itisalsopossiblethatanotherfactor iscontributing: DISCIPLINARY FRAME gures committedtothetendingoftheirforebears’legacies ects, tosomeextent, barrierstothe academiccareerin elds like fi lm studies andculturalstudieseven be OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH eld were95timesasimportanthis gures, was taggedjust cance. Noonecould eld’s “founder” lm 83 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 rationale forallthispoaching:thefi anthropologists like (Rieber1989). There is,tobesure,adefensibleintellectual retroactively dragoonedintothefi institutional tiestothenew fi political scientistHaroldLasswell,andpsychologistsKurt Lewin andCarlHovland—with no (Schramm 1955).SoonSchrammdraftedfourputative “founders”—sociologistPaul Lazarsfeld, imperialism. All communication,fromcave paintingtoradio,was thenew discipline’s domain entrepreneurial scholarslike Wilbur Schrammwerebusy elaboratingaspeciesofintellectual continued toproducescholarshiponcommunication-relatedthemes. sociology. Meanwhile,socialscientistsandliteraryscholars 1950s and1960s,by“communication”scholarstrainedinotherdisciplineslike psychologyand with theseunits’academicmissions(seePooley 2011). were underwrittenbyvocational trainingagendas,whichhowever remainedinunrelieved tension munication” label. To make mattersmorecomplicated,speech-andjournalism-derived programs 1960s, pre-existing speechandrhetoricdepartments acrosscampuswerealsoadoptingthe“Com- 1950s, fi research.” much deeper, toancientGreece.Communicationresearchismucholderthan“communication research” byatleastseventy-fi Mass communicationresearch,withoutthelabel,precededarecognizedfi 84 island withintheother, theslippagemightbemanageable.Butwithemergence of the institutionalizedfi label getsinvoked. Perhapsitisaproductive tension,but thereis,regardless, alarge gapbetween organized fi in thisgroupingisastudylike William Paisley’s (1984),aliterature-review-cum-history with institutional stories,anditsbalanced treatmentofthejournalismandspeechtraditions. Typical (1987) history, fl country-specifi four studies(or6percentofthe total)as“general”intheirscope,but thetaggingwas generous: is typicallyrelegated toabrief,StuartHall–centeredBirmingham survey. We taggedninety- tend toomit,atthevery least,fi regated histories.Syntheticnarratives arerare indeed,andeven self-styledgeneralistaccounts was taggedforbothdisciplines. (2004) treatmentoftherelationsbetweenculturalstudiesand sociologyinBritain,forexample, ing comfortablewiththedistinction,wedistinguishbetween “fi fi all over themap(fi agreement aboutwhatthosethingsare. call it.Butthefact iswecallmany things“communicationresearch”withoutcomingclosetoan has becomehopelesslymuddled.Communicationresearch,like any othersocialfact, iswhatwe and sociology. We followed fi rhetoric, fi cult,andinmany casesindividual works received morethanonedisciplinarytag. Without be- From oneperspective, noneofthismattered.Fromthefi Native researchtraditionssoonemerged, but even theseweregenerated,especiallyinthe Named departmentsandPhDprogramswerenotestablishedinlarge numbersuntilthemid- Still, thereisanunmentionedslippagethattakes placewhenthe“communicationresearch” To astrikingdegree, ,fi This stateofdefi JEFFERSON D.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK rst withinjournalismschoolsatlarge U.S.universities intheMidwest.Byearly lm studies,journalism,andculturalstudies—andcognatedisciplines,like literature elds withmediaresearchclaims,like fi c narratives andtwo-country comparative historieswereincluded. JesseDelia’s awed andU.S.-centricasitis,remains unusualforitsmixofintellectualand guratively, ifnot—alas—literally). Bibliographictaggingwas especiallydif- nitional chaosiscertainlyrefl eld andtheintellectualproject(Peters1986).Ifonewas merelyan eld (Schramm1963).Sincethen,many otherscholarshave been eld-historians’ own labelingwhenever possible.Frank Webster’s ve years.Inthecaseofspeechandrhetoric,intellectualrootssink lm studies.Culturalstudies,ifmentionedinageneralistnarrative, eld, fromclassicistslike EricHavelock (Gronbeck2000)to eld anditsconceptualrepertoirearetherebyenriched. lm studies,speech/rhetoric,andculturalstudieshave seg- ected inthehistoricalliteratureitself,whichis lm studiesandculturalstudies,thesituation outside rst daysoftheorganized fi elds-within-the-fi communicationdepartments eld of“communication eld”—speech/ other semi- eld, Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 phy—to producehistoriesof the fi Peters 2008)dispensewithfi a Whiggish cast. The strongestgeneralaccounts(like Nordenstreng2004andSimonson Carey, thereis,strictlyspeaking,very littlehistoryofcommunication research. nication researchlacksisasubstantial bodyofcorrective history. To adapt aphrasefromJames cation Study their dubiousveracity—even inbook-lengthstudieslike ’ ryline andtheclaimthat(U.S.)fi tain mnemonictropes,especiallythosecenteredonaputative powerful-to-limited-effects sto- histories contain“partiallysubmerged dragonsandexaggerated coastlines”(Pooley 2006).Cer- Isaac 2007;Crowther-Heyck 2006;andEngerman2010,foroverviews). research arenotablyabsentfromthedeveloping onCold War socialscience (see ogy, ,politicalscience,psychology, andsociology. And historiansofcommunication nothing like thesmallbut vibrantcommunitiesofdisciplinaryhistoriansthatwork onanthropol- century U.S.communicationresearch—isacrossroadswhere many passbut few tarry. There is stakes inthestoriesthey tell. What wehave—to borrow Wilbur Schramm’s descriptionofmid- major fi one researchershave publishedfi over 1,200authorsinthebibliography, thevast majorityofwhomappearjustonce.Only fi factor isthepart-timecommitment—spread-outandsporadic—ofthesescholars. We counted phy: Our review suggestsanumberoftentative conclusionsaboutthestateoffi prevent—for now—meaningfully integrative narratives. specialized literature. These studiesforeground theirlimits,andidentifythemany lacunaethat We candobetter. The fi Though diffi The energies andattentionofthefi • • • • • • dividual scholars,andthewinnersarenearlyallmale Western. a similarandrelatedwinner-take-all dynamiccharacterizesthehistoricaltreatmentofin- lavished Bureauof Applied SocialResearch,whileneglecting mosteverything else; of settingslike Birmingham’s CCCS,theChicagoSchool,andespeciallyattention- our existing historiesof departmentsandresearchinstitutesconcentrateonjustahandful indifference; cutting rivalries, pointsofintellectualandinstitutionaloverlap, andpatternsofmutual journalism, andfi while robust literaturesnow exist forfi tional histories; very few studiesattempt tocomparenationaltraditions,andfewer stillattemptinterna- America andEurope; to anoverwhelming extent, existing historiestreattopicsandthemescenteredonNorth studies withaninstitutional/contextual lens; the fi gures inthefi eld isdominatedbywork thattakes afi (1994). Every disciplinehasitslegitimacy-seeking originmyths,but whatcommu- cult todocument inourtagginganalysis,many ofourmostwidely-circulated eld withwide-rangingresearchagendasand—insomecases—reputational lm studies,onlytherareaccountaddressestheirinteractions—cross- rst and mosturgent taskistode-Westernize thefi eld-encompassingambitions,intheabsenceofamoredependable ve ormorestudies,andwellover halfoftheseare(orwere) eld beyond North America and Western Europe.Moretothe eldhadfourfounders,continuetocirculatewidelydespite eld’s historianshave beenmisallocated.Onecontributing CONCLUSION elds-within-the-fi eld-centric/intellectual approach,relative to OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH eld like cultural studies,speech, A HistoryofCommuni- eld’shistoriogra- eld’s historiogra- fty- 85 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 empty canvas. is ofahalf-fi interdisciplinary, andpublicentanglements,inadditiontoamadcapinstitutional story. demic knowledge. We have anexceptional casetostudy, after all,withfascinating state,industry, an overdue conversation aboutthefi eld’s disciplinaryself-understandinggoingforward. States and Western Europe. We could,moreover, usenew institutionalhistoriestohelpjumpstart recover andclarifyforgotten orneglected researchtraditions,especiallythoseoutsidetheUnited scholarship. effort, perhaps,but wehave suggestedthatthiskindoflegitimacy work mayclashwithrigorous long slog. Why expend theenergy? Supplyingthefi departures, would helptoidentifypatternsandtheremainingwork tobe done—thefi rststepofa of-print commemorative volumes. A survey ofthiswork, withattentionpaidtocontinuitiesand and professionalassociations—muchofitindissertations,limited-circulationreportsout- diversity ofacademiclife (e.g., Whitley 1984;Becherand Trowler 2001). postwar university, aswell asthesmallbut richcross-disciplinaryliteratureontheorganizational ing thisstory, wewillneed toengagewithhistoriesofthehumanities,socialsciences,and of communicationandmediastudiesacrosstheworld inthedecadesafter World War II.Intell- we hopetooutlineacomplex storythatremainspoorlyunderstood:thespreadofdepartments ply. Morework thatemploys amixofinstitutionalandcontextual approacheswillberequiredif importance arecomparative andtrans-nationalhistoriesofthekindcurrentlyinsuchshortsup- ect requires,tobesure,thathistorianstake theirstoriesbeyond nationalborders.Ofparticular as they have evolved over time,oughttocommandmoreofourhistoricalattention.Suchaproj- the fi eld’s rarehelpingsofsharedidentity. the fi eld’s disciplinarycoherence.Indeed,ourhistoricalnarratives have beenservingupsomeof plinary aspirations. The vast majorityofpublishedhistoriesassume—or, lessoften,proclaim— story lopsided historiographicalattentiontodate.Itisalsopossiblethatnew, andnewly engaged, masquerade asuniversal developments. historiography needstobechallengedtoo—especially totheextent thatitslocalparticularities in otherlanguages,ratherthanpresumeitsnonexistence. The casualethnocentricityofmostU.S. point, monolingual,English-speakingscholarslike usneedtoengagewiththeexisting literature 86 JEFFERSOND.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK

We2. forgo themorefamiliar labels— internalist andexternalist—to avoid thephilosophyof science The bibliographyismaintained online attheProjectforHistoryofCommunicationResearch’s 1. There ismuchlefttodo,despitethepublishedplenitude.Right now theimpressionwehave We canalsomake contributions tothewiderliteratureonhistoryandsociologyofaca- We canbeofservicetothewiderfi There is,thankfully, already asubstantialbodyofwork onindividual departments,schools But coherenceisexactly whatshouldnotbeassumed.Instead,thefi eld’s disciplinaryclaims, The projecttode-Westernize ournarratives furnishesitsown justifi cation,given theabsurdly treatment oftheterms’knottybackstory. baggage thatthetermssometimes carryinthehistoryofsciencetradition.SeeShapin(1992)fora rich cationresearch.org/documents/bib-10-12.pdf. dated, wehave archived theversion thatthis analysiswas based onathttp://www.historyofcommuni website, http://www.historyofcommunicationresearch.org. Becausethebibliographyisregularly up- telling outsidethe West willcontribute toarelated undertaking:scrutiny ofthefi nished pointillistpainting:fromafar afew shapesarediscernible,surrounded by eld inotherways. Oneworthy andusefulprojectistohelp NOTES eld withacoherentidentitywould justifythe eld’s disci- Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 Engerman, David C.2010.“SocialScienceintheCold War.” Dhar, Anup. 2011. “CulturalStudiesasLaborofNegotiation inHigherEducation.” Delia, Jesse.1987.“CommunicationResearch: A History.” In de Melo,José.1993.“CommunicationResearch:New ChallengesoftheLatin American School.” Crowther-Heyck, Hunter. 2006.“Patrons oftheRevolution: IdealsandInstitutionsinPostwar Behavioral Downing, JohnD.H.1996. Caraway, Brett.2011.“Audience LaborintheNew MediaEnvironment: A MarxianRevisiting ofthe Audi- Becher, Tony, andPaul Trowler. 2001. Barton, Allen. 2001.“Paul LazarsfeldasInstitutionalInventor.” Barranquero, Alejandro. 2011.“Rediscovering theLatin American RootsofParticipatory Communication Adhikarya, Ronny. 1983. Carey, James W. 1982.“TheMassMediaandCritical Theory: An American View.” Cartier, JacquelineM.1988.“Wilbur SchrammandtheBeginnings of American : A Calles-Santillana, Jorge. 2006. “Ludovico Silva andtheMove toCriticalStancesinLatin American Com- Buxton, William J.1999.“ReachingHumanMinds:Rockefeller Philanthropy andCommunications,1935– Bryant, Jennings,andErikaPribanic-Smith.2010.“A HistoricalOverview ofResearchinCommunication Berry, David. 2006.“PopularCultureandMassMediainLatin America: SomeRefl Berelson, Bernard.1959.“TheStateofCommunicationResearch.” Craig, Robert T. 1995.“Review of Corner, John.1998.“Postscript.” In Chaffee, Steven, andEverett Rogers.1997.“TheEstablishmentofCommunicationStudyin America.” In ———. 1996.“TheChicagoSchoolandtheHistoryofMassCommunicationResearch.” In Sage. ett M.Rogers,and by HerbertCohen.” by CharlesR.Berger andSteven H.Chaffee, 20–98.Newbury Park: Sage. of Communication Science.” 71–89. ence Commodity.” Research for SocialChange.” Singapore: Asian MassCommunicationResearchandInformationCenter. History ofIdeas.” PhDdiss.,University ofIowa. munication Studies.” Stamford: Ablex. Philanthropy Policy IssuesinEducation 1939.” In David Roskos-Ewoldsen, 21–36.Los Angeles: Sage. Science.” In Genealogy of JesúsMartín-BarberoandNéstorGarcíaCanclini.” In tures ofDiscipline, Transaction Publishers. Sage. The Beginnings ofCommunicationStudyin America: A Personal Memoir 21–38. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. Communication Research: The Remembered History book 6: 18–33. 13 (3):245–269. Isis The Development oftheSocialSciencesinUnitedStatesandCanada: The Roleof , editedbyDavid BerryandJohn Theobald, 192–211. Tonawanda: BlackRoseBooks. The HandbookofCommunicationScience 97:420–46. 43(4):182–90. Media,Culture &Society The HistoryofSpeech Communication: The Emergence ofa Discipline1914–1945 2nded.New York: OpenUniversity Press. Communication Theory Westminster Papers inCommunicationandCulture Knowledge Transfer andUsage inCommunicationStudies—theUS-ASEANCase. Javnost-The Public Internationalizing Media Theory: Transition, Power, Culture. A HistoryofCommunicationStudy: A Biographical Approach The UsesofLiteracy Academic Tribes and Territories: IntellectualEnquiryandtheCul- REFERENCES , editedby Theresa R.Richardson andDonaldFisher, 177–92. 13(3):69–80. 5:178–84. 33(5):693–708. , editedbyEverette E.DennisandEllen Wartella, , byRichardHoggart,269–84.New Brunswick: , editedbyCharlesBerger, MichaelRoloff, and Isis Handbook ofCommunicationScience Radical MassMediaCriticism: A Cultural OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 101(2):393–400. International Journal ofPublicOpinion Public OpinionQuarterly 8(1):154–177. , 125–80. Thousand Oaks: Cultural Studies ections onthe Works Communication Year- Thousand Oaks: Thousand 23(1):1–5. , byEver- American Journal , edited 25(1): 87 ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 Paisley, William. 1984.“Communication intheCommunicationSciences.” In Nosnik, Abraham. 1986.“CommunicationsandRefutations: A RationalReconstructionofMassCommuni- Nord, David Paul. 2006.“JamesCarey andJournalismHistory: A Remembrance.” Nerone, John.2009.“To RescueJournalism FromtheMedia.” Morrison, David E.1978.“Kultur andCulture: The Caseof Theodor W. Adorno andPaul F. Lazarsfeld.” Mellado, Claudia.2011.“ExaminingProfessionaland Academic CultureinChileanJournalism andMass Lunn, Eugene.1990.“Beyond ‘MassCulture’: Loshitzky, Yosefa. 2003.“Afterthoughts onMulvey’s ‘Visual Pleasure’inthe Age ofCulturalStudies.” In Löblich, Maria.2007.“GermanPublizistikwissenschaftanditsShiftfromaHumanistictoanEmpirical Liebes, Tamar. 2003.“Herzog’s ‘OnBorrowed Experience’:ItsPlaceintheDebateover the Active Audi- Lee, RichardE.2003. Kluver, Randolph,andChen Yang. 2005.“TheInternet inChina: A Meta-Review ofResearch.” Katz, Elihu,andPaul F. Lazarsfeld.1955. Jansen, SueCurry. 2009.“Phantom Confl Nordenstreng, Kaarle.2004.“Ferment intheField:NotesonEvolution ofCommunicationStudiesand Isaac, Joel.2007.“TheHumanSciencesinCold War America.” Im, Yung-Ho. 1993.“CriticalCommunicationStudiesinSouthKorea.” Green, Michael.1974.“Raymond Williams andCulturalStudies.” Gomez-Palacio Campos,Carlos.1989.“TheOriginsandGrowth ofMassCommunicationResearchin Glander, Timothy. 1996.“Wilbur SchrammandtheFounding ofCommunicationStudies.” 88 Hudson, RobertB.1977.“TheIllinois Years.” In Hoggart, Richard.1957. Harper, Nancy L.1979. ———. 2009.“TheConversation ofCulturalStudies.” Grossberg, Lawrence. 1996.“Toward aGenealogyoftheStateCulturalStudies: The DisciplineofCom- Gronbeck, BruceE.2000.“CommunicationMedia,Memory, andSocial-PoliticalChangeinEricHave- cation Research.” PhDdiss.,StanfordUniversity. Communication Education.” Era.” ,JohnD.Peters, Tamar Liebes,and Avril Orloff, 248–59.Cambridge:Polity. Canonic Texts inMediaResearch: Are There Any? Should There Be?How About These European Journal ofCommunication Social Scientifi edited byElihuKatz,JohnD.Peters, Tamar Liebes,and Avril Orloff, 39–53.Cambridge:Polity. ence.” In of Knowledge. mation Society . ciety.” its DisciplinaryNature.” (3): 122–127. 17 (1):108–23. tion , edited byDanielLernerandLyle M.Nelson,311–16.Honolulu:University ofHawaii Press. Latin America.” PhDdiss.,StanfordUniversity. Theory Publications andEntertainments. Book Co. in Cultural Studies munication andtheReceptionofCulturalStudiesinUnitedStates.” In lock.” 31–48. JEFFERSON D.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK Theory andSociety New Jersey Journal ofCommunication Communication andCritical/Cultural Studies 46(3):373–91. Canonic Texts inMediaResearch: Are There Any? Should There Be?How About These? editedbyBrenda DervinandMelvinJ. Voight, 1–43.Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Duke University Press. 21(4):301–308. c Discipline:ElisabethNoelle-Neumann,EmilDovifat andthePublizistikDebate.” 45: 331–55. Life and Times ofCultural Studies: The Politics and Transformation oftheStructures Glencoe:FreePress. Theory: The HistoryofaParadigm. , editedbyCaryNelsonandDilipP. Gaonkar, 131–47.New York: Routledge. The UsesofLiteracy: Aspects of Working-class Life, withSpecial Reference to 19(1):63–86. Javnost-The Public Journalism Studies London:Chatto& Windus. ict:Lippmann,Dewey, andtheFate ofthePublicinModern So- 22(1):69–88. Personal Infl uence: The Part Playedby People intheFlowof The LonelyCrowd 11(3):5–18. 8 (1):34–45. Communication Research—A Half-Century Appraisal 12(3):375–91. Cultural Studies , 6(3):221–245. Cultural Studies The HistoricalJournal , theUsesofLiteracy and thePostwar Working Papers inCultural Studies Journal ofCommunicationInquiry 23(2):177–182. Progress intheCommunica- 23(2):243–58. Disciplinarity andDissent RochellePark: Hayden Journalism History 50(3):725–46. Educational ?, editedby The Infor- 6: 32 , ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 Strate, Lance,andEdward Wachtel, eds.2005. Steele, Tom.1997. Sproule, J.Michael.2008.“‘Communication’:FromConceptto FieldtoDiscipline.” In Simpson, Christopher. 1994. Simonson, Peter, andJohnD.Peters.2008.“CommunicationMediaStudies,Historyto1968.” In Simonson, Peter, ed.2007. Shapin, Steven. 1992.“DisciplineandBounding: The HistoryandSociologyofScienceasSeenthroughthe ———. 1963.“CommunicationResearchintheUnitedStates.” In Schramm, Wilbur. 1955.“How Communication Works.” In Rogers, Everett. 1994. Rodriguez, JuanM.1995.“ConstructingMexico’s Media: A Critical Analysis ofUnitedStatesMassCom- Roach, Thomas J.2001. “TheParadox ofMediaEffects.” In Riesman, David. 1950. Rieber, Robert W. 1989.“InSearchoftheImpertinentQuestion: An Overview ofBateson’s Theory ofCom- Reisenleitner, Markus.2002.“InstitutionalizingCulturalStudiesin Austria: A View from Afar.” Pooley, Jefferson. 2006.“FifteenPages thatShooktheField: Platt, Jennifer. 1996. Peters, JohnDurham.1986.“InstitutionalSourcesofIntellectualPoverty inCommunicationResearch.” Szurmuk, Mónica,andSilvio Waisbord. 2011.“TheIntellectualImpasse ofCulturalStudiestheMedia Redal, Wendy W. 2008.“MakingSenseofSocialChange:StudyingMediaandCulturein1960sBritain.” Ray, RobertB.2000.“Impressionism, Surrealism,andFilm Theory: Path Dependence,orHow a Tradition ———. 2011.“Another PleafortheUniversity Tradition: The InstitutionalRootsofIntellectualCompro- ———. 2008.“TheNew HistoryofMassCommunicationResearch.” In ———. 2007.“DanielCzitrom,James W. Carey, andtheChicagoSchool.” lish” Question. Pooley, 164–78.New York: PeterLang. Media andCommunicationResearch: ContestedMemories 1945–1960. national EncyclopediaofCommunication Rereading Externalism-Internalism Debate.” edited by Wilbur Schramm,1–16.New York: BasicBooks. tion Press. munication Research,1945–1994.” PhDdiss.,University ofIowa. Village edited byRobert W. Rieber, 1–30.New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. munication.” In Studies and Jefferson Pooley, 269–90.New York: PeterLang. bridge University Press. Communication Research in Latin America: How toMove Forward.” 7–38. In Gibson, 65–74.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. in Film Theory GetsLost.” In mise.” New York: PeterLang. munication Research: ContestedMemories munication and SocialScience membered HistoryofMassCommunicationResearch.” The HistoryofMediaandCommunicationResearch: ContestedMemories , editedby Wilbur Schramm,3–26.Urbana:University ofIllinoisPress. International Journal ofCommunication , editedby Yahya R.Kamalipour andKuldip R.Rampal,5–15.Lanham:Rowman &Littlefi 16(6):896–907. Personal Infl 24(5):469–72. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. The Emergence ofCultural Studies: Adult Education,Cultural Politics, andthe“Eng- London:Lawrence & Wishart. A HistoryofSociological Research Methodsin America, 1920–1960 The Individual,Communication,andSociety:EssaysinMemoryofGregory Bateson LonelyCrowd: A StudyoftheChanging American Character. A HistoryofCommunicationStudy: A Biographical Approach. .

608 (1):130–56. Politics, SocialNetworks,andtheHistoryofMassCommunications Research: uence. Thousand Oaks:Sage. Science ofCoercion: CommunicationResearch andPsychological Warfare, 13(4):527–559. Film Studies: Critical Approaches History ofScience , editedby Wolfgang Donsbach,764–71.Malden:Blackwell. The Legacy ofMcLuhan Westminster Papers inCommunicationandCulture , editedbyDavid W. Park andJefferson Pooley, 43–69. 5:1442–57. 30:333–68. The Process andEffect ofMassCommunica- Media, Sex, Violence andDrugsintheGlobal Personal Infl uence Annals ofthe American Academy ofPolitical OMNCTO EERH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , editedbyDavid W. Park andJefferson The ScienceofHumanCommunication , editedbyJohnHillandPamela C. . New York: HamptonPress. The HistoryofMediaandCom- Critical StudiesinMediaCom- , Edward Shils,andtheRe- , editedbyDavid W. Park Yale University Press. New York: theFree . New York: Cam- The Historyof Cultural 8(1): Inter- eld. 89 , , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 05:18 02 Oct 2021; For: 9780203149119, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203149119.ch3 Zhao, Yuezhi. 2001.“HerbertSchiller, theU.S.Media, andDemocracy inChina.” Worcester, Robert.1987.“TheInternationalizationofPublic OpinionResearch.” Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. 2011. Ugboajah, Frank.1987.“CurrentDebatesintheFieldofMassCommunicationResearch: An African View- Tsukamoto, Seijiro.2006.“SocialResponsibility Theory andtheStudyofJournalismEthicsinJapan.” Tomaselli, Keyan. 1995.“TheMarxistLegacy inMediaandCulturalStudies.” 90 Willnat, Lars,and Annette J. Aw. 2004.“PoliticalCommunicationin Asia: ChallengesandOpportunities.” Whitley, Richard.1984. Webster, Frank.2004.“CulturalStudiesandSociologyat,after, theClosureofBirminghamSchool.” Wang, Georgette. 2011. “Paradigm ShiftandtheCentralityofCommunicationDiscipline.” Vroons, Erik.2005.“CommunicationStudiesinEurope: A Sketch oftheSituation Around 1955.” 2 (1):51–55. 51 (4):S79–S85. Erlbaum. point.” Journal ofMassMediaEthic 1–31. In Press. Cultural Studies Journal ofCommunication 67 (6):495–522. JEFFERSON D.POOLEY AND DAVID W. PARK Handbook ofPolitical CommunicationResearch Africa MediaReview 18 (6):847–62. The IntellectualandSocialOrganization oftheSciences. 5:1458–66. 1(2):1–17. s 21(1):55–69. Kittler andtheMedia . New York: Polity. , editedbyLynda L.Kaid,479–503.Mahwah: Africa MediaReview Public OpinionQuarterly & New York:Clarendon International Gazette 9(3):